Should Elevators Shame Us Into Taking The Stairs?

from the one-idea dept

johnjac points us to a blog post from Samuel Arbesman, about how he's always wished that elevators would shame people who only are going one or two floors into taking the stairs instead. He starts out by noting his anger at getting into an elevator to travel many floors, only to have someone else get in and press one flight up (I have to admit, I never realized this was a cause for anger). His suggestion is a form of public shame in the elevator:

But what if there were a way to eliminate this problem, or at least reduce it? One solution that I have often yearned for is the use of public shame. Imagine you get on at the first floor and press the button for the second floor. The elevator responds with a recorded message: "You have pressed the button for a floor that is only one flight away. Please press the button again to confirm that you cannot use the stairs."

If you're carrying a package, having trouble walking, or any other socially acceptable reason, no doubt the other passengers will think nothing of you pressing the button again to confirm your selection. However, if you are in fact an able-bodied human being, who is using the elevator out of nothing but sheer laziness, perhaps public shame will force you to reconsider your choice. And if you're the only one on the elevator, press away!

As I said, I was never aware that this was considered a "problem," but I can't see the shaming elevator being particularly effective. If anything I would imagine it would annoy more people as they now have to wait longer for the elevator to even begin its journey.

If Mr. Arbesman doesn't like this, then he should google "elevator hack", so he can force his way to whatever floor he wants without stopping to let these guys on in the first place. (psst -- it really does work)

However, if you are in fact an able-bodied human being, who is using the elevator out of nothing but sheer laziness, perhaps public shame will force you to reconsider your choice. And if you're the only one on the elevator, press away!

However, if you look like an able-bodied human being, but are in fact using the elevator for a perfectly valid physical reason, you will be forced to choose between your body's needs and public shame/judgment. Great idea, Arbesman!

Or not. My husband is a disabled veteran of the USMC and has a busted hip and ankle. To strangers, he looks perfectly healthy. Right now, in real life, he gets assholes glaring at him and making comments whenever he uses handicap accommodations, and even sometimes when he has his cane. I would hate to see how bad it would be if that sort of behavior was more acceptable.

And this isn't just about veterans. I mean, tons of people have MS, bad knees, etc. that can't be seen. You know, like Arbesman himself, who obviously has issues that we can't see that cause him to act like a complete idiot.

Great article about elevators in general. The cited page does mention "interfloor traffic", the term of art for going just one floor. It's not only disproportionately annoying, it shreds the otherwise reasonable assumptions engineers make when they determine how many elevators are required to serve a building of a given height and capacity.

In my experience it takes longer to use an elevator to go up one floor than to take the stairs, so it's generally just a silly idea to be that lazy because it A, takes longer and B, encourages less and less exercise

A better solution

On the assumption that this is really a problem (an assumption that I would not automatically make), I think there is actually a better solution. The algorythm that an elevator operates on is often referred to as 'elevator seeking' (although I think this term came from r/w head movements on disk arrays).

Current logic:
Suppose that I get on on the first floor and press 10.
Then the elevator stops on the 2nd floor, new passenger enters and presses 3.
The elevator stops at 3 before proceeding on to 10.

Now revise the logic:
Suppose that I get on (first) on the first floor and press 10.
Then the elevator stops on the 2nd floor, new passenger enters and presses 3.
The elevator proceeds up to 10 since my request was the first request, then goes back down to stop at 3.

I am, of course, suggesting this a bit tongue in cheek. The current elevator seeking logic works because its more efficient. However, it does favor the passenger with the shortest journey, at the detriment of passengers with the longest. (just like socialism here in europe)

But back to the subject at hand, rather than subjecting someone to scorn, if they were instead subjected to inconvenience (and knew so beforehand) then the logical course of action would be to take the stairs in the first place.

I did a consulting job at a building new to me, and monday through thursday, this happened to me literally every time. Sometimes two people in a row would make 1 floor hops on my relatively short trip to the 6th. Friday I said screw it, I'll take the stairs up. So I get to the 6th floor, and the door is locked from the stairs side - As is every single f*cking door except the lobby. I still can't think of a valid reason for this, there is no security at the elevator or anything. Still, I felt pretty stupid getting on the elevator after having made it literally 3 steps from my destination once already.

Elevator Shaming

My freshman year of college, I lived in a 12 story building. There was an escalator that took students to the fourth floor. From the fourth floor, you could take the elevator, but people below the eighth or ninth floor who chose this option were often shamed by people who lived on higher floors.

Corrected
It's only a Problem for Samuel (The World Should Be As I Want It To Be) Arbesman, and other Pricks like him.
If this phallus lavager, practiced what he preaches he would not have this to bitch about.
Corrected

If you are getting frustrated because someone else is using the elevator with you and it doesn't conform with your own views, driving you to anger and frustration there may be something wrong with you seek help.

I would understand if people got a bit upset about people farting inside an elevator, but people who just use it being target of negative emotions is not an issue of the users but the one actually feeling those emotions.

He has to wait a few extra seconds for people to leave an elevator, and he thinks the world should rearrange itself so it won't annoy him anymore? How incredibly selfish.
The real problem here is Mr. Arbesman's lack of empathy, not the way elevators work.

No access

The problem with this idea in most buildings I've worked in is the security folks won't let you take the stairs. Entering the stairwell is a one way activity - for fire exit. You can't walk from the ground floor up and get access to the 2nd floor. Maybe we could work on fixing that first.

Re: No access

humm... interestingly, many public buildings where i live are actually designed to discourage you from using the elevators, encouraging the use of escalators and stairs unless you are disabled or carrying a heavy load that would make it awkward. they're typically designed so you get to the stairs before the elevator, and often the elevator is either small, slow, or inconveniently placed (or some combination there of). admittedly, most of these buildings are 3-6 stories tall.

at the car park building by the library in the center of town, it's actually more common to see people using the stairs than the lift, at least going down (there's this thing where the first two stops on the lift equate to 2-3 times as many flights of stairs as every other floor, which is a pain when going up, so more people use the lift going that way, so far as i can tell. ) the library itself has very obvious escalators in the middle of the floor for going up to the second floor, and from there to the third. it's lift is tucked off around a corner, and one rarely sees anyone but the elderly or disabled using it, well, them and the librarians themselves when they have carts full of books to shelve.

which indicates that design is kind of important. i know a lot of large, fancy buildings tend to have the elevators be really obvious and easy to get to, and the stairs tucked out of the way, for example, even before taking any other factors into account.

(actually, come to think of it, the only public building i remember going to where they Encouraged the use of the lift over the stairs would be parts of the hospital (and a different hospital that i think has been torn down). and lots of older buildings don't even have lifts, so far as i can tell. i'm sure the few buildings in the middle of town that are 10-20, maybe even 30 stories high probably have them, mind you, but they're office or apartment buildings, so i've never been inside. likewise the hotels)

Re: Re:

"Engineers aren't stupid"

Bull. I know plenty of stupid engineers.

But I agree with you overall - they take into account the one-floor travel. Personally, I'm waiting for the elevator that will go left and right as well. There was one in a chocolate factory like 50 years ago - we can't make this happen yet?

Re:

I don't care if someone takes the elevator one floor. Sometimes, it's hard to find the stairs these days. If someone wants to take the elevator, go for it. If you want to scale the outside of the building - that's fine with me too.

Someone concerned about the problem of people taking the elevator just a single floor has too much time on their hands - hey Sam! Want to come shovel some snow for me? You seem awfully bored.

Re: A better solution

There is another solution that I've heard of; an elevator that only travels to floors 3,5,7,9,odd numbers etc. If you want to access an even numbered floor, you would press the odd number floor above it and walk down. (I admit, the sensible thing to do is pick the floor below and walk UP)
[One of the Trump buildings, I believe, has this, but for entirely different reasons]

I agree

I work in a 3 story, 2 basement building and frequently use the stairs over the elevators. Most often people in our building are only traveling 1 or 2 floors and use the elevator to do so... for shame! I have proven to people that the stairs are faster just because waiting for the elevator to show up can take to much time.

I can understand the elderly, the bad knees from football, or carrying stuff.... but if your empty handed... TAKE THE STAIRS!

Re:

I'd have more sympathy for disabled vets on this, being a somewhat worse for wear vet myself, if it weren't for a couple of things. First, your husband took a hell of a lot worse than a few dirty looks and snide comments just in boot camp, this kind of stuff should barely be noticed. Second, he's a Marine; that means even were he in a wheelchair he'd be able to casually tie a knot in the spine of anyone asshole enough to say anything. Or just use the unique command of the English language he learned in the service on them.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's cool to rip on disabled vets. I'm just saying that we're absolutely tough enough to take it and almost certainly capable of doing something about it should we decide not to. We're soldiers, Marines, sailors, and airmen. Sensitivity to our feelings is not generally high on our list of things we want out of life, in my experience anyway.

That was the kind of staircase that people were meant to use as an ordinary matter of course, rather than as an emergency fallback to an elevator. If you build a stairway on that scale, people will naturally walk up it, hang out on the steps, etc. In comparison with that, the "standard" modern stair of 11" deep by 7" high (10" deep by 7-3/4" high for private dwellings) is rather stingy.

Women's clothes entered into the design decisions. A staircase like the Spanish Steps was designed for the crinoline, the hoop skirt, a floor-length or ankle-length skirt perhaps two or three feet in diameter. Ankle-length plus high heels might have worked out to six inches ground clearance.

To build a staircase like that indoors, what you did was to build a big, multi-story entrance hall, and wrap the staircase around the side of the hall, The ground floor of the hall can be used for a restaurant, or canteen, or food court, or something like that.

And now he has updated it saying it was just an oops moment where he really was just doing it for our own good and chose words poorly.

I'd love to put signs in all of the elevators where this wonderful man works reminding people to shame him for being in the elevator. If you want to figure out how to get more people to use the stairs... set an example starting with you.

As a disabled student in a wheelchair, I find the suggestion somewhat offensive. So what if the people around me know that I have a valid reason to take the elevator up a single floor? I would hate to hear every day "You have pressed the button for a floor that is only one flight away. Please press the button again to confirm that you cannot use the stairs". NO %#$& I CAN'T TAKE THE STAIRS! (But of course the elevator will never know that.)
A similar thing happened to me last semester, whenever I had to enter the building of my math lecture; I would always enter through the handicap-accessible swinging door, which had a big sign plastered over it asking people to "Please use the revolving door and save the Earth". As someone who also generally wants to save energy, the environment, and all that, I felt a bit mad about the implication that my disability is doing the Earth a disservice.

Where I used to work there was a little sign near the elevator call button: "If you are going up 1 floor or down 2 floors, please consider using the stairs." That's all it took to get me out of the habit of using the elevator for short hops.

As for Mr. Arbesman, I think that if he wants to shame people, he should balls-up and do it himself. If he's on the elevator and someone gets on to go up one floor, he should tell them himself, rather than relying on the elevator to do it for him.

Re: Re:

"I'd have more sympathy for disabled vets on this, being a somewhat worse for wear vet myself, if it weren't for a couple of things. First, your husband took a hell of a lot worse than a few dirty looks and snide comments just in boot camp, this kind of stuff should barely be noticed. Second, he's a Marine; that means even were he in a wheelchair he'd be able to casually tie a knot in the spine of anyone asshole enough to say anything. Or just use the unique command of the English language he learned in the service on them.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's cool to rip on disabled vets. I'm just saying that we're absolutely tough enough to take it and almost certainly capable of doing something about it should we decide not to. We're soldiers, Marines, sailors, and airmen. Sensitivity to our feelings is not generally high on our list of things we want out of life, in my experience anyway."

Wow. Not only do you manage to attach apparently super human attributes to military personnel in general, but you use that imply that we shouldn't care about them being treated badly. You also suggest that violence is an acceptable solution for being insulted if you know that you'd win the fight. I can't say I'll ever have any military experience but as someone who practices martial arts I wouldn't want to be associated with anyone holding that attitude. I would hope that military personnel are held to an even higher standard.

But hey, at least you're not saying that it's cool to rip on disabled vets. Sure, you're saying that they should tolerate it or use violence, but at least you're not saying that it's cool.

off-topic, but

While we're on riding elevators one floor, can we throw in a dirty look for drivers who merge onto the freeway to go just one exit, even when there is a perfectly good (and nearly traffic-free) service road they could use? Talk about high-risk, doofus maneuvers.

Good Article

The laziness is causing fat to pile up on a lot a people bones. Some people are big and fat because they refuse to do minimal exercise. Walking up or down a few stairs won’t hurt anyone unless the person is really sick. This article is hilarious but it revealed the truth about some people.

Plus-one on this

"And this isn't just about veterans. I mean, tons of people have MS, bad knees, etc. that can't be seen. You know, like Arbesman himself, who obviously has issues that we can't see that cause him to act like a complete idiot."

I've been suffering from foot/ shin/ knee/ hip pain for 12 years. I'm a big person, I look like I'm in shape, I don't limp or anything noticeable. Yet, I haven't woken up a day since 1998 when something wasn't hurting, just to walk to the bathroom. You just get used to it.

Then I started working in the city again, and taking the trains, and doing a lot more walking. Pain I'd come to terms with starting getting worse. And I started sitting on the trains. At first I felt a little bad, but then I just reasoned it out: these people don't know me, know nothing about me. So how could their opinion of me really matter?

I just want to push the elevator button twice with a reply, "I don't give a flying f$#k what you think."

Re: Re: Re:

Am I? I thought I was mostly saying pick a different group of people who are more into whining about how unfair life is to be the example. Vets deserve respect and aren't opposed to a bit of sympathy now and then but we've little use for pity. Again, in my experience.

As for superhuman, no, just on the upper end of the curve. That you thought I meant otherwise either means you mistook hyperbole for a straight statement or you're further back on the curve than you believe.

Re:

Re: Plus-one on this

Good attitude. Myself, I have hip down problems I picked up in the Army. I never bothered filing for disability because my chosen field of IT doesn't really make an issue of them. Here's hoping that when they worsen as I get older, I manage to maintain as much dignity.

Re: Good Article

well since you dont mind shaming people for taking the elevator when you have no idea if it actually will hurt them or not, then you should have no qualms about people pointing out that you are an especially stupid person based on the little that you have exhibited in this post.

go right ahead and argue the point... the moment you try you will also make yourself into a hypocrite as well...

Re:

I know what you mean. I have a couple of problems which at times make using the stairs, even for one flight, impossible. And the most I have is a slight limp most of the time.
And I hate using elevators too, I'm claustrophobic. But in some places using the stairs isn't safe.
There are plenty of reasons someone may be taking an elevator to the next floor, and not all are obvious.

Shame

Nice idea, but

I prefer to take the stairs if I'm only going a few floors. It's quicker. However, in most larger US office buildings, you CAN'T take the stairs. For security reasons, doors to the stair well are one-way only. You can only use the as emergency fire escapes, to exit on the ground floor, but you cannot go up the stairs. That's the case in my office building. Consequently, I take the stairs when I leave the office, but I have no choice but to elevate back when I return.

Re:

here here. Since I was 21, supposed prime of my youth I've had serious arthritis. I work out to keep the pain down so I look like more than an able bodied 6'2" young man... however some days I can barely put my shoes on without screaming in pain.

However no one sees that and most don't believe me. I'd love to dance, ski or even take the stairs when I can... but I just can't some days.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Am I? I thought I was mostly saying pick a different group of people who are more into whining about how unfair life is to be the example. Vets deserve respect and aren't opposed to a bit of sympathy now and then but we've little use for pity. Again, in my experience."

Perhaps you should work on expressing yourself then. I'll repeat my paraphrase, you said: they should tolerate it or use violence. Oh sorry, I missed the bit about the mystical 'command of the English language'. Reading fail on my part. You weren't suggesting that they should use violence, merely that it was acceptable. Hmm, actually I don't think that's any better.

"As for superhuman, no, just on the upper end of the curve. That you thought I meant otherwise either means you mistook hyperbole for a straight statement or you're further back on the curve than you believe."

No, there is no way that I could possibly spot hyperbole in you expecting a wheelchair bound veteran to 'tie a knot' in someone's spine. Of course I took it literally. After all, the only other alternative you offer me is that I'm inadequate in some way, which would imply that you in fact have super powers to determine such as you've never met me.

Full disclosure: my most useful physical attribute in a fight is my above average running ability. Martial arts tends to be a pretty poor way to learn even basic self defence. Most worthwhile arts take many many years to even achieve a basic competence, but that doesn't mean that you aren't dangerously incompetent before you reach that stage. My point wasn't that I was tough, or above average in a fight, but that learning how to break bricks with you bare hands makes you probably as dangerous as someone wielding a baseball bat and hurting people for insulting you is bad.

The other point was that not everyone in the military is going to be Rambo (have you seen the pictures of Bradley Manning? He's not exactly tall or bulging with muscles). No matter how much training you've got, if you're 5.2ft and 48kg then you're going to struggle against a much larger opponent. Plus, as in your wheelchair example, no amount of training is going to overcome some disabilities.

Re:

Bingo, there it is. Most large buildings that I've seen are setup this way for safety reasons (Fires and the like). You can't use the stairs to go up or down one floor.

My current building is worse then this, and it's only four floors. If you don't have the ability to unlock the doors, the only way out of the stairwell is threw the outside door that sets off the fire alarm.

This may not be some asshole being lazy, it may just be that there's no other choice. Ether way, this is a clear sign that Samuel Arbesman is a selfish prick. He doesn't want to be inconvenienced by a slightly longer elevator ride. He doesn't even bother to think that it may be something else causing the one floor hops.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

See, now we're more or less on the same page. I don't advocate more violence in society but I do condone some specific instances of it. Those who say it never solves anything are speaking from their ideals rather than thousands of years of evidence to the contrary.

Personally, I believe that the world would be a much nicer place to live in if the right to free speech came linked with the right to get smacked in the mouth for being an asshole. Not serious violence, mind you. Nothing that would justify a hospital visit. But a fat lip or a black eye have taught many a valuable lesson throughout human history.

I too get mildly frustrated with this. I live at the top of a big building on a campus, and before or after class, it is sometimes annoying when people get on/off at the second floor.

The big problem though is that sometimes there are people who simply need the elevator. Sometimes there are injuries you can't see, or there are people with heart conditions. Is it really fair to make those people feel bad for such conditions? Should we make them feel obligated to explain their personal circumstances?

It's really not that big a deal...I suspect we as a society can just live and let live. How about getting enraged at the injustices people experience on the other side of the planet? Wouldn't that be a better use of time?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"See, now we're more or less on the same page. I don't advocate more violence in society but I do condone some specific instances of it. Those who say it never solves anything are speaking from their ideals rather than thousands of years of evidence to the contrary.

Personally, I believe that the world would be a much nicer place to live in if the right to free speech came linked with the right to get smacked in the mouth for being an asshole. Not serious violence, mind you. Nothing that would justify a hospital visit. But a fat lip or a black eye have taught many a valuable lesson throughout human history."

I wouldn't say it never solves anything, but there is a vast gulf between resorting to violence because you are left with little choice and being violent because someone insulted you.

There is no such thing as a fair fight and you only have to look at the fact that the vast majority of violence is committed by the predominantly stronger sex and the negative effect that male dominance has had on society to see why resorting to violence for trivial matters is a bad idea. Free speech? Only if you're a fit and healthy male, sorry.

You talk about 'ideals', to me it seems far more idealistic to suppose that a small amount of violence can have any positive effect that isn't vastly outweighed by the negative consequences. Next you'll be talking about chivalry.

Okay, I'm baffled. If taking the stairs up one floor is faster, why doesn't Samuel Arbesman (going to an upper floor) get off at the first floor the elevator stops on and climb the (obviously nearby and convenient) stairs to the next? He gets there sooner than the elevator does, he gets the benefits of the exercise he so wishes the other occupant would experience, and he gets the bonus of embarassing the other occupant when the elevator door opens one flight up and there's the guy who just got off it. Arbesman can then get back on and resume his journey without having to share "his" elevator with anyone, AND he has gotten one flight's worth of the exercise he values so highly. It's a win-win situation.

Elevators

Having lived in a highrise building for several years, I feel this guy's pain. What's even more annoying are the people who get on the elevator in order to go DOWN just one floor. I mean, hell, you have to be monumentally lazy to be willing to stand around waiting the 3-5 minutes it takes for the elevator to arrive rather than quickly walk down a flight of stairs, where gravity is pretty much doing all the work for you at that point.

In our building, the elevator doesn't shame such people, but the nasty glares they get from the other residents usually does the trick.

Time waste

So somebody pushes the button to go up one level. The elevator states it's message, the person hits the button again or opens the doors to get out and go find the stairs. Is there really a trade-off of time savings here? For the one level upper, it is a much larger waste of time. For everyone else, wouldn't it have been pretty much the same if the elevator just went up one level, let the guy off, and proceeded?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

There is no such thing as a fair fight and you only have to look at the fact that the vast majority of violence is committed by the predominantly stronger sex...

And there's a very good and logical reason for that. Men are stronger than women and so better at it. You'd hardly want to instigate violence if you thought you were going to get the crap kicked out of you more often than not. Now make that a survival trait and give evolution thousands of years to work and you have women that are primarily mentally predisposed to intensely dislike violence as well as not being very good at it, relatively speaking. There's nothing particularly good or noble about their aversion to violence any more than there is in having blue eyes. Well thought out positions are worth consideration and debate, instincts are not.

...and the negative effect that male dominance has had on society to see why resorting to violence for trivial matters is a bad idea.

Says you, to both assertions. Normally I'd give a better response to that but it's so obviously straight out of militant feminist propaganda without any added independent thought that it's really not worth anything above a juvenile reply.

Free speech? Only if you're a fit and healthy male, sorry.

Now that's a valid point. Limit it to adult, same sex pairings then.

You talk about 'ideals', to me it seems far more idealistic to suppose that a small amount of violence can have any positive effect that isn't vastly outweighed by the negative consequences.

So now chivalry is a dirty word? When did the ideas of protecting, rather than harming, and even being courteous to those weaker than yourself become worthy of scorn, exactly? And what kind of a mind did it take to come up with the idea that they were?

Personally, I don't hold doors open, etc... for women any more often than I do for men. Courtesies aren't courteous if they're undesired. I'm guilty as all hell of the not hitting women bit though. It's unnecessary even if they become violent towards me; they're too easily restrained. Guns, explosives, and other equalizing agents aside, of course. If that attitude gets my ass kicked one day, well, at least my friends will enjoy having that to rib me about. I've got enough of a sense of humor to roll with it.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Like the people with bad knees, MS, etc. that can't be seen? You know, the folks I already used as an example in the original post?

...who are more into whining about how unfair life is to be the example.

Who said anything about whining, or unfairness?

Vets deserve respect and aren't opposed to a bit of sympathy now and then but we've little use for pity.

Wait. Are you saying that criticizing an idea to publicly shame people with invisible disabilities is akin to pitying them? Or that not publicly shaming them is somehow pity? Really?

You seem a little hypersensitive to the idea of someone feeling sorry for you, but I can assure you that not all vets feel that way. Some of them are just regular folks who don't get bent out of shape if someone holds the door for them or decides not to publicly shame them for using an elevator.

As for superhuman, no, just on the upper end of the curve.

Marines might be, sure. I'd buy that hypothesis. But my comment wasn't about Marines. It was about people with invisible disabilities.

And Marines with disabilities generally have impediments that might reduce their place on that curve. You know, that's the thing that we call a disability.

That you thought I meant otherwise either means you mistook hyperbole for a straight statement or you're further back on the curve than you believe.

Wait, you used an exaggerated statement and then he used one, but now you're criticizing his exaggeration? Huh.

You know, usually your comments are much more logical than this. Are you having an off day?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

When did the ideas of protecting, rather than harming, and even being courteous to those weaker than yourself become worthy of scorn, exactly?

Chivalry have never worked that way. Ever. If it did, it wouldn't be an idea worthy of scorn.

As for the rest of your BS, it's BS. The legal consequences of violence limit the use of violence in our society to asshole moves that are worth the consequences, and would be valuable for that alone, if that we lived in a world where everyone is equally capable of asshole-answering violence.

In the real world, however, we're not all big, able-bodied, well-trained, or men, which are all impediments to the idea of training politeness into the public with physical violence.

Open carry is a better asshole-equalizer, because then he never opens his mouth in the first place, and the smallest old lady in a wheelchair can carry one.

Re: Shame

Question, my elevator only has 2 floors : -1 and 0.
If I take the stairs, it's a 7 minutes walk in the stairs to go back to ground level and finally be in the streets (and that's if you keep on climbing at a decent speed the whole time).
Also, there are no escalators at the start, nor are there any midway. No to say, but I think anyone would understand why i'm not taking the stairs for a floor. and I'm not exaggerating, that's the way I take to go to univ each day.

But hey, might as well push in his ideas even further.
Let's say, there is a biometric database of disabled people, and they have to pass their thumb to make the elevator work. Now, to use the elevator if you have a big package, you gotta buy an elevator card to get that elevator to go up.
Otherwise, if you're not disabled or don't have a package, you can still buy an elevator card for a higher price, for being an asshole and taking the elevator while not being disabled. After all, public shame doesn't get you any money, so might as well, and it'll even pay up for maintenance costs, eventually.

Some people seriously needs to chill out, and quit raging when things don't go their way.

Re: Re: No access

interestingly, many public buildings where i live are actually designed to discourage you from using the elevators

Not were I live. Due to the belief that terrorists are everywhere, the public buildings near me have locked the stairwells. Actually, they probably locked the stairwells to keep the homeless people from living in them.

I like using the stairs, and were I currently work, they only have stairs (it isn't a tall building, only three floors.) But I've actually had alarms go off on me trying to use the stairs in a public building in the city before.

A green building

I once visited a "Green" building where you needed to use an RFID pass to activate the elevator. They had an up one, down two rule, if your pass wasn't on the 'disabled' list, it wouldn't let you go up one or down two.

Interestingly enough, the freight elevator had no such restrictions. And if you really wanted to, you could go up to the 4th floor, then down to the 2nd floor. Making the work arounds a lot less green :).

Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

You know, usually your comments are much more logical than this. Are you having an off day?

There's a fair chance a second round of heavy snow less than a week after snowpocalypse has me in a crabbier mood than normal, yes.

I'm also aware that I am overly sensitive to the idea of people feeling sorry for me. It's a consciously chosen attitude in response to our culture of politically correct victimhood. No, the irony is not lost on me.

Like the people with bad knees, MS, etc. that can't be seen? You know, the folks I already used as an example in the original post? And most of the rest...

Yes, exactly like them. My beef with what you said in your original post was pretty narrow and entirely about disabled vets.

Re: Re: Re:

Most of the rest addressed above but...

In my experience, it's not high on the list of things vets get but it certainly seems like something that you guys wish for.

Nah, do what you promised us in the contract we signed and the laws on the books and don't otherwise screw us over and I think we'd be fine if you didn't think much about us at all outside family. Empathy or sympathy? Meh, I can live without it.

Marines are people. You know, as opposed to superheroes with the ability to rip out spines while making a hilarious smart-ass remark?

Really? Not according to the Marines I've met. Most of them will swear an unarmed Marine could kick a tank's ass. Levity aside, I know they're people. They're just extremely tough people as a whole, both mentally and physically.

What a jerk

This guy sounds like a total jerk. The kind of person who would turn in their neighbors kid selling lemonade for 10 cents to the health and revenue authorities. Get some anger management dude, really life is too short to worry about people taking an elevator one floor. Have you ever thought that maybe they have hidden health issues, like heart or respiratory disease? Jacktard, go stick your head up your ass.

Re:

Of course there are always exceptions to the rule, such as... your husband.

I would have to say that this is a little overly dramatic for just a elevator example, but I think his point was valid.

Our country sucks because people are too lazy. If you didn't see an example of it everyday then I would say maybe you have a point. Not everyone has someone in their life who is a disabled veteran. Dont be offended that we dont think about the fact that they exist. Im pretty sure you go through your life constantly thinking about everyone's different situations that they are in. I highly doubt it. you only care about yourself and the people you love, which btw is completely normal and ok. What my point is, is that you can't always get offended because one guy who wrote an article (which in my opinion should have been taken as humorous) and didnt happen to take into account the few disabled people out there that may need to take the elevator, but may not show a handicap. Maybe you should write your own article about how your upset that other people a.k.a "assholes" dont happen to realize that your husband is handicapped and glare at him for using the elevator to go up one floor. All i know is that i have seen many non-handicapped people take the elevator to go up one floor and guess what?? they are usually obese or they are just too pretentious and lazy to take the stairs.

Re: Elevators

In the fairness of those who live on the second floor or frequent visitors one floor away, the elevator voice should remind people right before opening the door that if their destination is here, would they please consider getting off one floor earlier next time and climbing the last floor.

If we don't crack down, those who have to go more than 1 floor will get a free ride the whole way!

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

My beef with what you said in your original post was pretty narrow and entirely about disabled vets.

No, I used personal experiences to explain what happens to people with invisible disabilities, and I specified a disabled vet with hip and ankle issues, people with bad knees, people with MS, and the ever-present 'etc.'. That's alot more than just veterans, specifically.

It's true that the longest part was about a disabled vet, because that's what I have experience with, but my comment wasn't entirely about disabled vets, any more than it was entirely about folks with MS.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

...do what you promised us in the contract we signed and the laws on the books and don't otherwise screw us over...

You haven't applied for any benefits, have you?

Most of them will swear an unarmed Marine could kick a tank's ass.

Of course, they can. I never said that they couldn't kick a tank's ass. I said they couldn't rip out spines while making a hilarious smart-ass remark. Specifically, it's because they can't think of one. They are Marines, you know. :P

Re: Re:

Wow, you're kind of a bad person.

First, it's not normal to forget the millions of people with invisible disabilities. There are so many of them that it's statistically unlikely for you to not have someone in your life with an invisible disability, unless you have no one in your life. (I'm not discounting this possibility.)

Second, most people have some compassion. I mean, clearly, you don't, but most people do. Even if we're not married to someone with an invisible disability, we're aware that these folks exist, and write with that in mind.

Third, I don't need to write an 'article' about assholes, because I've already written a comment about one asshole in particular, who has probably glared at an MS sufferer or two on the elevator before writing his post. (And now there's this one, too!)

Fourth, whew!

That was the entire point flying over your head.

To be clear, my point was that you have no idea whether or not people are 'too lazy' to take the stairs. The funny thing about invisible disabilities is that they're invisible.

For instance, how do you know whether or not they were born with diabetes or a similar problem, making them both overweight and in need of an elevator? How do you know whether or not that person is a disabled veteran struggling with a hip injury and PTSD that requires drugs that cause extreme weight gain?

God, I feel like pasting this onto a sad cat photo so that you can maybe understand it.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Open carry is a better asshole-equalizer, because then he never opens his mouth in the first place, and the smallest old lady in a wheelchair can carry one."

Strangely, my perception of the opinion on gun ownership in Britain leads me to believe that many of the people who might benefit from owning a gun are among those most against the idea. As a young person I pretty much missed the discussion on gun ownership, but it's now pretty much a non-starter in British politics as it is viewed as a naturally progressive development (which I am sceptical of).

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"And there's a very good and logical reason for that. Men are stronger than women and so better at it."

Way to miss the point. Not all men are equally strong either.

"You'd hardly want to instigate violence if you thought you were going to get the crap kicked out of you more often than not."

Change this to: 'You'd hardly want to instigate an argument if you thought you were going to get punched in the mouth more often than not'.

"Now make that a survival trait and give evolution thousands of years to work and you have women that are primarily mentally predisposed to intensely dislike violence as well as not being very good at it, relatively speaking."

Is there such thing as 'popular evolution'? I'm not even going there.

"There's nothing particularly good or noble about their aversion to violence any more than there is in having blue eyes. Well thought out positions are worth consideration and debate, instincts are not."

Technically, if you're going to make that argument then you can stop at 'there is nothing good or noble'. I have to admit that I am not an existential nihilist myself and therefore make subjective statements about whether something is good or bad, even if I don't believe in a universal notion of good or bad.

"Says you, to both assertions. Normally I'd give a better response to that but it's so obviously straight out of militant feminist propaganda without any added independent thought that it's really not worth anything above a juvenile reply."

Yeah.. I'd like to respond, but I don't even know which part of the comment you're objecting to. Are you suggesting that male dominance hasn't had a negative effect? Because the violence bit certainly couldn't have been out of some 'feminist propaganda' book, so it would appear that you're denying the negative effects of the (ongoing) oppression of women. I'd like to think that you were just being overly dismissive and don't really mean that.

"Now that's a valid point. Limit it to adult, same sex pairings then."

Wow, and Boxing makes it look so complicated, with all those different weight divisions. I guess Bradley Manning would be OK if he dressed up as a woman or boy.

"So now chivalry is a dirty word?"

If you're a feminist it tends to be. As someone brought up with the idea of 'manners' I often catch myself doing something sexist without realising it, I'm a product of society too. There is nothing wrong with treating someone nice, but if you're treating them nice based on the sole fact of their gender then you're not so much being nice to them as displaying something akin to pity. You're a veteran who says ex military don't need sympathy, despite it being based on their specific needs rather than the fact they're a veteran; yet you appear to support treating women nice based solely on their gender. That's a logical impossibility unless you're purposefully treating one group better or worse, which would make me wonder what you think about female veterans.

"Personally, I don't hold doors open, etc... for women any more often than I do for men. Courtesies aren't courteous if they're undesired."

You've pretty much declared that all women are one entity by ascribing them a specific opinion. You might be surprised to know that some of the most vocal anti-feminists are women.

"I'm guilty as all hell of the not hitting women bit though. It's unnecessary even if they become violent towards me; they're too easily restrained."

Ha ha. You'll not hit a woman who's violent towards you but you will hit a man who insults you. I hope the guilt is for being sexist against men. You don't need to get beaten up by a woman for it to be funny, in fact to those who aren't sexist then it's already funnier.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I don't fetishize gun ownership, like some folks do, but I also-don't fetishize non-gun ownership, like some folks do. :P

In American, almost all gun-related crimes are committed by felons, who aren't allowed to have guns anyway, so what would be the point in taking them away from my family, who uses them to hunt for food and get ready for the zombie apocalypse?

Anyway, I realize that the gun death levels in England are very low, comparatively, but Switzerland's are even lower, and they all have guns. By law. Like we used to. Also, your bludgeoning death rate kinda sucks, which just goes to show that specific kinds of weaponry aren't the central factor in this issues.

so how will this shaming work?
a bucket of water to the head?
a cartoony finger pointing and laughing at the person?

will it shame people in wheelchairs?
old people who need a cane to walk?
middle aged people with heart and breathing problems that kept care of themselves so they still look like that are in their 30s?
the whole suggestion is short sighted and ignorant

ADA

This stupid suggestion is a flagrant violation of the ADA act. I have arthritis that occasionally forces me to take the elevator. Further a lot of buildings keep people from taking the stairs by locking the doors to the stair well so you can't enter only exit.

I am an active firefighter and take the stars whenever I am able as when I tool "Elevator Rescue" I found that the elevator almost always survived—not the occupants.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"In American, almost all gun-related crimes are committed by felons, who aren't allowed to have guns anyway, so what would be the point in taking them away from my family, who uses them to hunt for food and get ready for the zombie apocalypse?"

I agree wholeheartedly. If the case for banning guns is as good as many here would have me believe then I haven't heard it yet.

"Also, your bludgeoning death rate kinda sucks, which just goes to show that specific kinds of weaponry aren't the central factor in this issues."

We're barely over the latest hysteria over knife crime, in which people were suggesting that knife ownership should be restricted. I'm wondering when they'll get to sporks.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Tell them that knife ownership is restricted in the US, and we still knife each other to death ion a regular basis."

Well, technically it's already restricted and has been since at least 1961, with further restrictions in 1988. It's also been illegal to sell knives to people under 18 since 1996. But some people still want more restrictions, or for the existing ones to be enforced more harshly.

Im sure this has been said

but what about old people in wheelchairs, or people who push carts of stuff, or someone with a knee injure; must they live a life of shame?
Even If you can program the elevator to detect if the person is a able body person who could have very well taken the stairs and is only being a lazy bum; I don't think shame is an appropriate motivation to have one take the stairs.

At my school, we have a flyer posted in front of every elevators that says "Don't be square, takes the stairs", with a cartoon character surrounded by a recycling logo on it, and on cardboard cutouts around campus.
Every time I read the line "Don't be square, takes the stairs" I laugh and go along with it.This makes me feel good.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Well, technically it's already restricted and has been since at least 1961, with further restrictions in 1988. It's also been illegal to sell knives to people under 18 since 1996. But some people still want more restrictions, or for the existing ones to be enforced more harshly.

Maybe just me but the baldness of that statement just made me chuckle. Probably because I didn't know the US controlled knives at all and a call for "tighter knife control" seems ironic to me with so many people dedicated to not restricting guns.

I assume the people really involved would be different, but it gave me an image of someone standing there shouting "More control of knives, but hands off my grenade launcher!".